User talk:BusterD/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:BusterD. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Thanks
My belated thanks to you for your comments in your note to me about Jensen. I notice that he has gone quiet even though I have inserted something about Poland under FDR. Encouragement is what we all need. Roger Arguile 12:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
'Haut en bas' simply means, from on high (to a lower place). I take your point about his being knowledgeable but when I pressed him on the point about the Placentia Bay conversations between FDR and Churchill, he went quiet. I am not so sure about his always being right. He thought little of my background knowledge about FDr coming as much of it did from, as he said, a book about a fighter squadron, but the book 'Your Freedom and Ours' is littered with references to the memoirs of people who were at, for instance, Yalta and Tehran. Yalta is interesting because there were apparently no minutes kept (or extant). Thus there is some leeway for interpretation and comment by those present. It really does appear that FDR was twitting Churchill in order to gain favour with Stalin, not realising that Stalin could not be charmed, let alone bought. But I detect in the USA (and particularly with Jensen) a huge resistance to see any blemish in the character of FDR. Yet the number of vandalising acts on the site are considerable. I don't know where you come from but the polarisation is, from a British point of view, amazing. Can't FDR have got it badly wrong from time to time? Not according the the Jensen. Odd. Roger Arguile 14:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
BusterD, thanks for the compliment on the grand parade of states. I wrote a few of them (my native Ohio, Pennsylvania, others), and added substantial content to others (Illinois for example). I have toyed with a common opening, as well as uniform headers, but to date, I haven't spent much time trying to make these more similar. I will, however, work on beefing up the opening paragraphs. I have some time in hotels on a business trip, so this would give me something to do in the evenings. Scott Mingus 21:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- BusterD., take a quick look at Ohio in the Civil War. I beefed up the intro in the spirit of your suggestions. Let me know what you think. If OK, then I will over time start down the parade and similarly add more meat to the opening paragraph(s). regards! Scott Mingus 00:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- OK! I have added more meat to the opening sentences of Pennsylvania in the Civil War and Illinois in the Civil War. Will work on some Southern states as time allows later this week. Tennessee in the Civil War is also done. Scott Mingus 02:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Request on Template:American Civil War
Since you seem to be the most active editor on the template, thought I'd ask direct. One factoid that always seems to come up and is never remembered... the sides, and count of each. 11 in the CSA, of 36 (Lincoln Memorial)... In any event, I suggest and request you add the two lists of the sides to your table/template (to the manifold gratitude and 'undying thanks' of untold numbers of High School students (as yet unborn <g>) faced with the dire task of writing CW term papers <g>—and probably more than a few College undergrads as well, now that I think about it! <G>) Thanks // FrankB 00:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've reposted your request on the template talk page, where several editors can offer an opinion. I agree that the Confederate Navy jack (with 13 stars) is misleading and many students don't get the 11 states thing. Let's see how consensus solves this. Thanks for raising the issue; it's not trivia and perhaps we can figure out some effective way of reinforcing this. BusterD 01:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Not only are you acting correctly, but you've been incredibly patient with a user who is displaying some serious ownership problems. (Shell)
- That is only because he keeps bringing something up in the form of feedback statements to me like "willful ignorance" which is a personal attack on me that I will not accept. Block my account, I have never had that done to me and I have caused no harm to anyone nor to their work. I leave people to work in peace. I have other things I can do. I thought I had been helping for a year. (MAURY)
You're right to be concerned, the user is systematically blanking his talk page and doesn't appear to be interested in learning from other editors trying to help him out. He's obviously trying to use policy to his advantage while ignoring it when applied to himself. He does appear to be well meaning with regard to article edits, but doesn't work well with others. Unfortunately, editors like these far too frequently end up leaving the project, either because they become frustrated at being unable to control what they're working on or because they're finally forced off by blocks.
Sometimes they can be clued in to the problems with their behavior through persistence; sometimes a series of short blocks (called the cattle-prod approach) will get them to understand that they need to work productively with others. Sometimes there's really nothing that can be done to help them out and they'll be happier finding some place better suited to their skills. I'll try leaving a note on his talk page to see if having a few people talking to him at the same time might help. Shell babelfish 16:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm considering creating a talk archive for this user account so that a complete record exists on one or two pages. I get the impression that this is an older person who's just not that willing to grow into procedure. I'm cool with that, but this profile could also be someone who is rules lawyering (as you suggested). Pretty harmless, but I wonder what this user would do if confronted with Rjensen or some even less sympathetic editor. BusterD 17:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Look, all I have wanted in this is to write an article. I started late and knew it would take another day to freshen up on my sources because we don't just post from memory. That carried me into a 2nd day where I completed the article I was writing. It is nonsense that two people, two strangers, can work on one article at the same time. The article was nothing but a "stub" dating back to June. Had you or anyone else wanted to then you could have written an article and make sure the editing was correct as you went. But nobody came to write there until I arrived here in October. That is "stub" from June to "article" of October. I had no idea who was chaning what I was in the =middle= of writing but to continue what I started I did change the text back to what I had written. Why jump in and send me no personal message? I arrive and see what I was working on and where I wanted to go with my writing =altered=. I don't know you and certainly didn't when you changed my material I was working on. As I have not stated in several places the article can now be edited. I wrote what I felt =should= have been written while not wanting your changes, nor anyone elses, until I was finished writing the article. These arguments and misunderstandings and all have taken up enough time and space to have written several more articles. I had General Birkett Davenport Fry in mind next but now I am highly reluctant to write an article unless I am at least allowed to finish it before it comes under editing by an outsider. When in school, throughout my life uncluding the university after Vietnam I was always taught to do my work without help when possible. That was always the rule even though people would often get together to work out the answers together, which was wrong of them to do and my grades remained high. U.Va. doesn't even like for students to get as low as a C. As for my age, I just turned age 59 and I'm flexible, I take pride in that but I also learned each person is to carry their own work load whether in class or war or as a civilian.
To edit when any person is just starting an article is a wrong in my opinion. Let te person finish, communicate withquestions as opposed to semi-crass statements or your seeing "red flags" as you wrote.
You, editor, could have left me a note explaining what you were doing from the beginning and preferably before you started so there would have been civility among us -- and to run to someone else is , well, it's back to carrying your own work load as I see it instead of increasing more misunderstandings. Always notify any writer before you start altering his or her work if only for keeping the peace and maintaining civility so all can build on Wiki projects.
As I have stated about four or five times now, BusterD, you can now edit the Mercer page. I finished what I wanted to do with it.
As for being confronted with a less sympathetic editor I would do the same as I now plan to do -- Quit -- because I dislike little keyboard warriors (power mongers) who would think twice facing me in real life.
. . . and all for what? It is nothing but a loss for any person writing articles to quit. I have contributed a lot of articles starting with nothing but "stubs". I don't know why you didn't write the article back in June when you created the "stup" page instead of waiting for someone else to come along so you could "edit" their work to your preferences. Perhaps you get some sort of "points" for just editing another's work and are climbing a ladder of Wiki-Power, authority over others ?
Well, it no longer matters to me. (unsigned comment left on my admin coaching page by User:MAURY)
Link to discussion at Shell Kinney's talk.
Beer
I was going to thank you for that. Maybe if I visit my sis in Hartford, I'll get to NYC and take you up on that offer. The best part is, I'm not picky as any beer will do. Thanks and have a good day.--MONGO 15:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
"Vandalism" in Jeff Dunham
I noticed your commit message "JS: Reverted vandalism by 128.223.170.118 to last version by 67.177.118.229." on the Jeff Dunham article, reverting the change of "Jose Jalapeño (on a stick)" to "Jose Jalapeño (on a steek)". The back of the DVD actually describes the character using the spelling "on a steek", to convey Jose's accent; thus, this didn't actually constitute vandalism (though 128.123.170.118 should probably have added some explanatory text for the spelling). -- Josh Triplett 21:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Take point
The problem with "Derived from the above expression, in recent American popular culture, "on point" refers to someone who possesses abundant and various qualities of competence, proficiency or leadership." is that it is an expression from the 1930's, see also the derived expression "on the ball" and is not very much related to "walk point" or "take point" except through the base meaning of the word point. Folk etymology should be avoided. Bejnar 18:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- As a person who hangs out with a wide variety of musicians lots of years younger than I, the current youth slang "on point" definitely derives from this article's primary usage, and in no way from any prior usage (but this is OR). Phrase comes from modern action films. No argument with your assertions, but the usage IS derivative of the military phrase "on point" and actually more properly means one who "has their sh#t together". That being said, thanks for helping me rescue worthy material from deletion. I was perfectly willing to delete it until I read the accompanying article. Suffice it to say I have a soft spot for Vietnam vet stories. BusterD 20:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Buster - I've withdrawn my nomination for deletion. It's still not perfect by a long way, but it's considerably better than a dictdef now. Well done. Grutness...wha? 21:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Is that normal, that someone in the AfD discussion suddenly loves an article and keeps it from dying the death of many deletes?
It happens occasionally. Often putting something on afd is a way of saying "at the moment this looks bad - either it will be deleted or the debate here will stir someone into action". Quite a few editors (myself included) will try to save things at afd by expanding them while the deletion debate is in progress. One editor in particular (an Australian editor called User:Capitalistroadster) has quite a reputation for saving items from afd - he's saved close to a hundred articles over the last couple of years. It's good to see you taking a keen interest in the workings of Wikipedia - if I can be of any help, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. And yes, "Saving Walk/Take Point" does sound like a Tom Hanks movie title! :) Grutness...wha? 23:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Request
BusterD,
Will you please check what I added to the Fontaine Maury Maverick article to see if it is acceptable?
Brother Officer 19:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006
The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Got your message
I'll see what I can do about Sherman.Jimmuldrow 23:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll be nice.Jimmuldrow 23:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks like Eb hoop beat me to it.Jimmuldrow 23:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Mucking alert on William Tecumseh Sherman
Usual suspects. BusterD 22:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- That futhermucker! I got to the party a little late and see that Eb has jumped in. Since he was the primary author of this article, I generally defer to him for primary action in such cases, although I am always willing to lend a hand. I agree with your sentiment about careful editing of featured articles, although I take a slightly different tack -- in an article that is richly festooned with in-line citations, it is actually very difficult to make casual changes unless you are willing to maintain the integrity of the footnotes. So the footnoting of articles actually provides a great defensive mechanism against arbitrary changes. I have a slight degree of intellectual sympathy for some of the delinking that Jensen does, although the elitist tone he uses to justify it makes that sympathy evaporate pretty quickly. I love it when he plays the "this is an encyclopedia" card when it suits him, but elsewhere he does things like listing 75 references because the article is supposed to be "educational." :-) Hal Jespersen 00:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Request
BusterD,
Will you please check on both the article, James Luther Slayden, and also at the very top where I cannot edit the spelling his middle name is incorrectly spelled. Luthur is shown whereas Luther is the correct spelling as shown on the Talk Page of "James LuthUr Slayden"
I need to know if the article itself is acceptable. I would not bother you except you wrote if I had any problems to feel free to contact you. I am not sure but I do not think I could do that on my own Talk page?
Brother Officer 16:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Al Gore
Buster, I agree with you, and think you're doing the right thing, but I'm not sure that violating consensus counts as "vandalism." (In fact, I'm pretty sure that it does not - see ""Bullying and stubborness, here). Not a big correction, but since it's not vandalism (1) we need to keep negotiating with the pro-inclusionists; and (2) everyone is probably stuck to 3RR or less, unless the WP:BLP exception applies. Thanks, TheronJ 19:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree. Also, the personal attacks on me on not welcome. Please stop. You can review your personal attack on me here: Malicious personal attack on Getaway by BusterD Have a good day!--Getaway 19:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- For the record, I turned myself in for personal attacks investigation. BusterD 19:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- That's not a personal attack. From NPA: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks." There's nothing personal about stating that Getaway has used a "disrespectful and deeply personal political tone"; it's a comment on his behavior during the discussion, not his character. Kirill Lokshin 21:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong. It is if what he is saying is NOT true.--Getaway 15:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Truth isn't as much an issue as one might suspect; in any case, though, this particular statement happens to be true (c.f. "GoreBot", etc.), so that doesn't get us anywhere. Kirill Lokshin 17:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong. It is if what he is saying is NOT true.--Getaway 15:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- That's not a personal attack. From NPA: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks." There's nothing personal about stating that Getaway has used a "disrespectful and deeply personal political tone"; it's a comment on his behavior during the discussion, not his character. Kirill Lokshin 21:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- For the record, I turned myself in for personal attacks investigation. BusterD 19:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree. Also, the personal attacks on me on not welcome. Please stop. You can review your personal attack on me here: Malicious personal attack on Getaway by BusterD Have a good day!--Getaway 19:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Applauding your good faith
I just want to thank you for this comment. It makes disputes like this a lot easier to know that the person you disagree with is still trying to make the best of a difficult situation. Happy editing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Gore III
Thanks for your note. It looks like there are many voices involved already, so I'm not sure what I can provide. I'd have thought that he wasn't notable enough for a seperate article, but it looks like that's not the prevailing opinion. In any case, feel free to contact me again if there's a specific action I can take. Cheers, -Will Beback 00:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm currently involved in the case of an anti-Muslim fanatic vs. a lynch mob, plus various things IRL, but I'll try to get over there when I can. Would mind emailing me your account of the mess? It'd be nice to have some intel going in, without alienating anybody as such... crazyeddie 23:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks like the situation I was talking about is currently meta-stable - not solved so much as any further intervention on my part will only make things worse. I'll continue keeping an eye on it. Let me know if you need any help on Al Gore III or anything else. crazyeddie 00:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Re: Task force scope
Ah, no problem; I'm just trying to make sure we don't wind up with three different consensuses! ;-)
In any case, I think this will be a non-issue in practice; the vast majority of articles will be fairly obviously appropriate for only one of the task forces. Kirill Lokshin 01:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I would try to keep this somewhat limited in scope, rather than trying to have it absorb all of Category:Military; in particular, adding top-level categories like Category:Military history or Category:Military organization probably isn't useful, as they serve more to collect specific articles on all individual events or units than on issues of military science per se. Kirill Lokshin 17:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'll take a breath here for a bit. I was trying to bring the primary category structure with the basically working structure in the Military science article. I was also categorizing; was almost finished. I'd love some feedback here; not trying any mucking. Let's take this to task force talk, if that's ok. BusterD 17:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- It looks good, basically. My concern above was more related to the point that those two categories were much broader in scope than just military science per se, so having them directly in the top-level military category might be better; but, other than that, your improvements have been great. Thanks for taking the time to do this; categorization cleanup isn't the most exciting of things to do! :-) Kirill Lokshin 17:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- When ACW task force went up, I heard some static from page space creators about Scott Mingus's and others' heroic effort to build some coherence in the category structure. In this arena, I consider this effort the absolute primary task the a task force must create and maintain. Page space is secondary to a budding effort like this. Helping to sort WMD and SHAEF, so to speak. This is the framework upon which we can hang all that great new created content when we find it. BusterD 18:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- It looks good, basically. My concern above was more related to the point that those two categories were much broader in scope than just military science per se, so having them directly in the top-level military category might be better; but, other than that, your improvements have been great. Thanks for taking the time to do this; categorization cleanup isn't the most exciting of things to do! :-) Kirill Lokshin 17:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
November Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
|
PS to the email
One more thing you can do - invite friends! The more the merrier... Thanks! crazyeddie 05:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Admin coaching - November 6 - Inactive coaches
Sorry, what do you mean by ER? If you wantyour coaches attention on things let them know, you're allowed to pester them ;) Highway Ringo Starr! 13:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not neccessarily, (winces at spelling) coaches should do that too. Just give them a poke! Highway Ringo Starr! 13:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: I have created a potential problem
Ah, it's no big deal; that sort of thing happens occasionally. There's nothing wrong, per se, with having two simultaneous reviews going; it's not something I bother with myself (mainly due to the fact that the central PR isn't very useful), but some people like it. Kirill Lokshin 23:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: Editor review
Yes, 30–40 edits is a good number; having more is probably a sign of terminal Wikiholism. I generally average about triple that, incidentally (but a lot of it is fairly mindless template updates, category fixes, and that sort of thing). ;-) Kirill Lokshin 04:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Union Corps
I think this looks very good. I've made two articles about Georgia battles in the Civil War, and I just finished The Veteran Reserve Corps. Hope it's ok.--Lord Balin 21:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Article about Wikipedia Users
Hello,
I am a freelance writer working on an article about the wide array of people who make Wikipedia their life, their passion, their pastime. Wikipedia “addicts” if you will. I'm also looking at all the "behind the scenes" goings on at Wikipedia that the average reader of the site never knows about. I intend on focusing a little on several of the unofficial Wikipedia organizations that members are a part of such as Esperenza et al. As such, I would like to speak to you about your experience with the Admin Coaching program. If you are interested in participating, please email me. FFFearlesss 20:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the welcome... now help???
Hi Buster, thanks for the welcome. Perhaps you can help me. As you can see from my previous post on this page, I'm working on an article. I've left this message or similar messages on other user pages who, based on the projects they're involved in, I think would have interesting things to say. Well apparently I've been targetd by the user Bearly541 who thinks I'm some kind of bot trying to vandalize pages and she's rallying adminstrators to block me. Please, I am just a guy working on an article. I'm not harrassing people. I send one message and if they want to participate, they do, if not they don't. Any thoughts? FFFearlesss 22:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
fictional appearances
"The cultural reference agreement is about removal of trivia, while significant appearances can stay. In these cases the use of only this specific design of a weapon has to make a difference." For trivia on weapons (notably firearms) can be expanded for espionage affairs: Is the item used real and does the fashion it is used help the reader to understand better its usage or did it induce(needs proof) the invention of a real item - significant appearance. Everything else belongs into articles about fiction or the works where it made its appearance. Wandalstouring 18:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Calliope Torres
I'm wrong; you win; shut up. :-) Finally tracked down an ep where her coat was readable in SDTV; noted on Sara Ramirez; I think it's save to move that reference picture to Commons as a citation source.
--Baylink 02:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006
The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: The mess up
Not that I (still) fully understand the whole situation... but apology accepted. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 16:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
You did the right thing
Don't beat yourself up as you did [1]. By emailing me and not going public, you were asking a seasoned admin (me) how to handle the situation. It was my mistake to not simply send the info to oversight immediately. It was my mistake to post the info at AN/I, but I was only doing so to ensure others knew why I had blocked that editor. It wasn't necessary for me to relink to the diff. You did nothing wrong, as I have expressed in email to you. Best wishes.--MONGO 16:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
In my view, there's a bit too much mea culpa going on. As far as I can see, PaxEquilibrium did nothing wrong in making that post. It was a software glitch that caused a bit of old vandalism (worse than vandalism, actually) to resurface with his post. You were right to revert and to e-mail MONGO. MONGO was right to block PaxEquilibrium as an emergency measure while it was being investigated. And Mackensen was right to unblock him, and also to make it clear in the block log that he was innocent but that MONGO's error was not culpable. It seems as if everyone (except the real vandal) acted in good faith. AnnH ♫ 01:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)